Can any one point me to requirements or a best practice resource regarding signatures on debit transactions conducted in the branch. For example, an authorized signer on a business account conducts a cash withdraw at the branch. Is there anything anywhere that requires or recommends we obtain a signature for that transaction?

What does the corporate resolution say the authorized signers have the ability to perform?

Withdraws...but I am speaking more generally about best practices and recommendations regarding obtaining signatures on cash out transactions...not just business account authorized signers.

So how do you plan on proving that the cash withdrawal was authorized in the event there is a dispute down the road without a signature?

I am told that the system will identify the transaction by the authorized signer or account owner conducting it, and we should have the video archived for the resolution period. I would like to provide a resource of best practices (or requirements if there are any) that still encourages us to obtain a signature for cash out transactions, but I am coming up short. Any suggestions?

Best practice is a signature - video recordings can be blurry, lost, copied over by mistake, etc. Nothing beats a verified signature as proof.

Signatures can also be blurry and unidentifiable, but I do agree that betting a signature would be best practice. But I need to support this stance with additional resources. Do you know where there is a resource that discusses this preference/opinion?

And in the case of a dispute, what are you going to do when you receive a retrieval request without a signature?

You won't find anything in a compliance forum or regulation. This is a legal question regarding your deposit contract and your state's Uniform Commercial Code. Bank counsel should be consulted for an opinion before implementing this change.

I would be willing to bet that your resolutions require sample signatures, but someone in your organization thinks it would be okay to allow withdrawals with no signature; i.e. operate in a fashion contrary to our own set up?

This is a really bad idea. I would put a mark next to the name of the advocate.

Whether or not you get a signature is almost always a legal question. If you read the legend above the signature lines on every document in the bank it will say (one way or another) "I agree", "I received it", or both. There can be unfavorable legal consequences if you act without your customers' knowledge or agreement, so you might as well bring your legal counsel into this discussion.

maybe you can have your bank's counsel do a search on lawsuits bank's have lost when disbursing funds to unauthorized individuals...

who is the party at your institution that thinks it would be a good idea to dispense with this procedure? possibly a word with someone higher up the chain about this fruitless idea is warranted.

what does your internal audit department think about this? external auditor? compliance department?

if you put this in place, in 6-months you'll be back here asking "our bank gave some money to the wrong person because we don't require a signature. how can we contest this?"

^^^^^This!

How about a really practical answer? Compare the time and effort to access the withdrawal document (original or imaged) and the time and effort to track down the transaction in your journals and get the video snippet that hopefully captured the authorized individual's withdrawal of the funds. And how good is your video at identifying the document(s) involved in the transaction.

I agree that a signature should be required, but I'm curious if anyone has implemented biometrics at the teller line? How would you feel if a palm or fingerprint would be required rather than a signature for cash withdrawals? Probably not gaining anything in terms of efficiency but curious if others are using or have explored this option?